But Flake and his growing list of lawmaker-supporters won’t go away, partly because he’s right on this.

The big business of making campaign contributions and landing earmarks is corrupt. The ongoing enormous PMA defense-contracting scandal, the center of Flake’s crusade, has made that as clear as ever. And the present outrageously weak laws governing the earmark trade guarantee corruption will continue.

Flake, who keeps introducing his resolutions in order to draw attention to the topic and get lawmakers on the record for and against, won over all the GOP representatives early on and he’s gaining support among Democrats. His first resolution of the session, floated in February, won 17 votes in favor from Democrats. The April Fool’s resolution drew 27 Democratic votes.

Freshman Democratic representatives from conservative districts have started peeling away from the majority to back Flake. So predictably have Reps. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D., and Barron Hill, D-Ind., who co-chair the Blue Dog coalition.

So far, none of the Colorado Democrats have gone Flakey, not even Betsy Markey, representative of the conservative 4th district. Neither has Ed Perlmutter, who gave $2000 in PMA campaign contributions to the Colorado Boys and Girls clubs as news of the PMA FBI investigation broke.

Colorado Republican representatives Lamborn (also tainted by the PMA scandal) and Coffman have voted in favor of the Flake crusade.

(Photo/Rep. Ed Perlmutter)

Perlmutter spokesperson Leslie Oliver asked The Colorado Independent to run a correction, as she described the line Perlmutter draws when it comes to the business that mixes earmarks and campaign donations.

“We took no campaign money from IHS,” Oliver said. “But yes, we received campaign contributions from PMA’s political action committee.”

IHS won an extra million dollars thanks to Perlmutter and other members of the Colorado delegation who voted for the IHS earmark, a group that included Wayne Allard, Ken Salazar and Tom Tancredo.

According to a Congressional Quarterly study of a Taxpayers for Common Sense database, IHS paid PMA to lobby Colorado members of Congress to secure defense contracts.

The FBI investigation of PMA turns on suspicion that the company acted as a conduit for campaign cash, making sure money got to the right people when relevant federal appropriations were being considered and decided upon.

Is accepting campaign donations from the lobbying firm representing a company ultimately any less suspect than taking campaign donations from the companies themselves?

Many observers see the practice as merely a “workaround” that puts merely puts one level of distance between the companies and the lawmakers for the sake of appearances.

“That’s a question for investigators to decide,” says Oliver. “We’ve given the money to the Boys and Girls Club.”

She said Tancredo, Allard and Salazar came to Perlmutter and asked him to consider the earmark for IHS.

“We then met with IHS,” she said. “What IHS does is catalog all F-18 components. Without being able to catalog those, mechanics can’t provide important services to the planes. We thought it was a clearly important national security project that would also provide jobs in Colorado.”

Pork is an old issue, a reality of the political scene and something at least one prominent senator has defended.

Rolling Stone dubbed Hillary Clinton the “Queen of Pork” last summer as news of her profligate earmarking as a senator began to break far and wide. The news was no secret inside the beltway and it didn’t significantly affect her fading presidential campaign.

Although she danced around the issue, ultimately Clinton made no bones about what she was up to. “Senator Clinton has asked the Appropriations Committee to support defense projects for New York firms and institutions which will promote our national security,” her spokesman told members of the media pressing the issue. “And she is pleased that the conference committee agreed in providing funding for these vital projects.”

There’s nothing illegal nor unusual about campaign contributors reaping benefits from earmarks. It remains for now an ethical question, as opposed to a legal question.

That’s part of the reason Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) submitted a resolution this week to establish an ethics committee that would investigate the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions, a resolution that, whatever its intent, amounted from the beginning to nothing but a scold. Last month, Flake introduced H. Res. 85 to investigate the connection between campaign funding and earmarks — the bill remains in committee.

As Congressional Quarterly put it: “All involved knew in advance that the measure had virtually no chance of success; minority parties generally use such resolutions as a way to underscore a point or try to embarrass the party in power.”

The resolution was killed by House Democrats who took thousands of dollars in campaign money from PMA and who secured millions in earmarks for PMA clients.

Colorado Springs Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn. (Photo/lamborn.house.gov)

As the Colorado Independent reported Monday, Lamborn is not the only member of the Colorado delegation to be touched by the scandal. Rep. Ed Perlmutter, Sen. Mark Udall and retired Rep. Tom Tancredo also worked to win contract money for PMA clients and also received campaign contributions either from the companies that benefited or from PMA.

According to The Seattle Times earmark database called “The Favor Factory,” Perlmutter and Tancredo received contributions from Colorado-based IHs, Inc., an information analysis company that provides consulting in the aerospace, defense and energy industries. IHS received $1.6 million for a Navy project described as “National Item Identification Number Validation and Correction.” IHS reportedly gave $2,000 to Perlmutter and $500 to Tancredo. Perlmutter’s office reports he received no contributions from IHS but did receive $2,000 from PMA through its political action committee.

The same Seattle Times database lists Lamborn and Udall as receiving contributions from Lockheed Martin. Lamborn reportedly received $2,000 and Udall, if the Favor Factory list is correct, upwards of $20,000.

According to the statement Lamborn sent the Colorado Independent yesterday, the congressmen worked last year to secure a “modest increase” of $1 million for Lockheed’s Senior Scout Integrated mission Trainer, an Air Force project.

Four Members of the Colorado delegation jointly sought a modest increase over the proposed budget request for the Senior Scout Integrated Mission Trainer. The Senate and House Armed Services and Appropriations Committees decided to increase the funding for the program by $1 million.

On the matter of accepting campaign contributions from Lockheed, Lamborn’s office denied any connection and refused even to pay lip service to the idea that mere reassurances from lawmakers must always be viewed as an inadequate check on corruption:

We will take your word that [Lockheed] did donate [to Lamborn's election campaign]. We haven’t checked because the bottom line is: campaign contributions have absolutely nothing to do with appropriations requests or any other legislative matter.

As Lamborn’s office surely knows by now, the FBI and at least one vocal Arizona congressmen disagree. As the Congressional Quarterly reported yesterday, the FBI has all but shut down PMA as its probe into the firm’s earmark-related lobbying activities proceeds, and the House is scheduled to vote today on whether to begin “an ethics investigation into the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions.”

Sen. Udall’s office has yet to respond to the Independent’s requests for comment.

—-
**CORRECTION: Rep. Perlmutter’s office called with the correction that appears above. “The Congressman did not receive a campaign contribution from IHS, Inc. It is Rep. Perlmutter’s policy never to accept contributions from companies he is working to secure funding for,” said spokesperson Leslie Oliver. The Colorado Independent regrets the error.